Freethought & Rationalism Archive

scigirl · 06-16-2002, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyShea:
The theory of abiogenesis (NOT evolution) is quite simple and straightforward. Everything on the planet, including living organisms, is composed of some combination of these elements (links to periodic table):

Hey I never thought of it that way before - good point!

scigirl

Camaban · 06-16-2002, 03:26 AM

Quote:

What do you think was really happening?

Well, I think it's quite obvious

those materials they were experimenting with were simply the building blocks of those particular life forms, and combined to create those life forms in the right conditions.

hezekiah jones · 06-16-2002, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Guess you didn't catch the joke, eh?

Of course I caught your "joke." Most of your posts are jokes.

Quote:

How can I argue that a chart is in itself evidence?

It isn't. It shows that you don't know the difference between spontaneous generation and theories about the chemical origin of life on earth. Odd how everyone else seems to notice this.

Quote:

I mean once it becomes a chart its proof. It's always been that way for us evolutionists.

Another "joke"?

Quote:

First of all, the chart incorrectly misrepresents creationist's views.

I thought you didn't know anything about creationist views. What is the correct "creationist view" then? Or are you just another bitter antievolutionist without a point?

Quote:

Secondly, creationist views are not relevant to this particular thread.

zzzzzz. Anyway, nice sidestepping. Still no point.

[Arch Stanton - Great name!]

Viti · 06-16-2002, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

Hey I never thought of it that way before - good point!

scigirl

I never post in this forum as I simply don't have the scientific knowledge ya'll do...I hoped to show that these theories are not all that difficult to comprehend. I hope I didn't mess it up too bad

lpetrich · 06-16-2002, 01:22 PM

From this <a href="http://www.byui.edu/ricks/employee/WELLERG/Spontaneous/Spontaneous%20Generation.htm" target="_blank">History of the Spotaneous-Generation Idea</a>

Quote:

In 1672, Sir Thomas Browne, a medical doctor, wrote a book which destroyed some commonly held ideas. One chapter of this book was dedicated to the lifecycle of frogs. Dr. Thomas Browne wrote:

"Concerning the generation of Froggs, we shall briefly deliver that account which observation hath taught us. By Frogges I understand not such as arising from putrefaction, are bred ....but they let fall their spawn in the water... In this spawn of a lentous and transparent body, are to be discerned many specks, or little conglobulations, which in a small time become of deep black.... Now of this black or duskie substance is the Frogge at least formed; as we have beheld, including the spawn with water in a glass, and exposing it unto the Sun. For that black and round substance, in a few days began to dilate and grow longer, after a while the head, the eyes, the tail to be discernable, and at last to become that which the Ancients called Gyrinus, we a Porwigle or Tadpole. This in some weeks after becomes a perfect Frogg, the legs growing out before, and the tail wearing away, to supply the other behind." (Pseudodoxia Epidemica 1672 6th edition)

This skepticism about spotaneous generation provoked Alexander Ross's comments about mice coming from river mud and the like.

randman · 06-19-2002, 04:20 PM

"I'm still waiting for the point of the discussion. Thus far, I fail to see where all this is going."

How can there be a point with evolutionists who simply deny basic facts. Its like arguing the meaning of what "is" is. Even here on this thread, I post a link stating that abiogenesis is a form of spontaneous generation to show that most evolutionists believe that life can spontaneously generate from non-living matter. I would love to make a point, but we haven't gotten past first base. These guys won't even admit basic facts of their position.

Why?

Because they are totally disingenious.

randman · 06-19-2002, 04:28 PM

"I will concede that the origin of life is an unsolved problem."

Thank you, Ipetrich. Seems so many others eee it as such a simple proposition as if all that is required is to think it happened, and voila, it must have.

Duvenoy · 06-19-2002, 05:36 PM

All too true. There are some problems with abiogenesis.

"Unfortunately, the conditions that lead to the synthesis of sugars would poison the synthesis of purines, and vice versa. Because of this, authors have speculated that the syntheses of the two compounds were separated in space or time. While this may strike you as an ad hoc requirement, there is an excellent chemical rationale for it: if the early Earth had a neutral, as opposed to reducing, atmosphere (the current best guess) then formaldehyde (and hence sugars) may have readily formed, but cyanide would have been quickly scavenged into other forms unsuitable for purine biosynthesis. However, cyanide (and purines) would likely have entered the prebiotic environment in two other ways: first, from comets, which have been shown to be rich in cyanide(s). A huge amount of organic material, possibly as much as was created by atmospheric chemistry, was delivered to the Earth during the time preceding abiogenesis. It is likely that the kinetic energy of comet entry would have led to the synthesis of a variety of compounds, including purines, from stored cyanide. Second, besides the atmosphere and comets, the other primary center for the synthesis organic compounds was deep sea hydrothermal vents. Here the chemistry was likely much more suitable for the synthesis of purines from cyanide than in the atmosphere. Thus, we have the synthesis of sugars in the atmosphere and upper reaches of the ocean, and the synthesis of purines during the impact of comets and in the lower reaches of the ocean: as hypothesized, separation in space and time."

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html</a>

However, if there were no problems, there would be little need for science. Perhaps, within our lifetimes, this too, will be solved. The above link is a very interesting read.

doov

Dr Rick · 06-19-2002, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Even here on this thread, I post a link stating that abiogenesis is a form of spontaneous generation to show that most evolutionists believe that life can spontaneously generate from non-living matter.

Randman is dishonest.

He tried to equate abiogenesis with the ancient belief that life could spontaneously arise from decaying, inanimate matter; a belief that was called "spontaneous generation" which we now all know is not true, and is not equivalent to modern theories of abiogenesis

His attempts to draw parallels between the two are illustrated in this post made on a Christian board, and his own words betray the knowledge he had that it was an old, discredited idea:

Quote:

Randman:
Sponteneous generation was a theory, or beleif, that was unsupported by the facts and illogical. In my view, abiogensis is not only the same thing, it is basically making the same underlying assumptions that the expanded version made. It is not a scientific or logical belief in my view, but is held onto for only one purpose, to deny the Creator. It is not based in facts. It's relevance is to show the state of mind of evolutionist scientists, to show thier lack of objectivity.

The old belief in "spontaneous generation" has nothing to do with evolution or the modern theories of abiogenesis; Randman has been caught in a lie and is now trying to change the definitions he used.

hezekiah jones · 06-19-2002, 06:22 PM

Of course randman could save himself a whole lot of grief by simply e-mailing Professor Coyne and asking him to clarify his position, if randman feels it needs clarifying:

<a href="http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/faculty/coyne_j.html" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne's U. of Chicago Home Page</a>

I have done so a couple of times, and received prompt, highly informative, and gracious responses from Professor Coyne.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-19-2002, 04:20 PM	#46
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"I'm still waiting for the point of the discussion. Thus far, I fail to see where all this is going." How can there be a point with evolutionists who simply deny basic facts. Its like arguing the meaning of what "is" is. Even here on this thread, I post a link stating that abiogenesis is a form of spontaneous generation to show that most evolutionists believe that life can spontaneously generate from non-living matter. I would love to make a point, but we haven't gotten past first base. These guys won't even admit basic facts of their position. Why? Because they are totally disingenious.

06-19-2002, 04:28 PM	#47
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"I will concede that the origin of life is an unsolved problem." Thank you, Ipetrich. Seems so many others eee it as such a simple proposition as if all that is required is to think it happened, and voila, it must have.

06-19-2002, 05:36 PM	#48
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	All too true. There are some problems with abiogenesis. "Unfortunately, the conditions that lead to the synthesis of sugars would poison the synthesis of purines, and vice versa. Because of this, authors have speculated that the syntheses of the two compounds were separated in space or time. While this may strike you as an ad hoc requirement, there is an excellent chemical rationale for it: if the early Earth had a neutral, as opposed to reducing, atmosphere (the current best guess) then formaldehyde (and hence sugars) may have readily formed, but cyanide would have been quickly scavenged into other forms unsuitable for purine biosynthesis. However, cyanide (and purines) would likely have entered the prebiotic environment in two other ways: first, from comets, which have been shown to be rich in cyanide(s). A huge amount of organic material, possibly as much as was created by atmospheric chemistry, was delivered to the Earth during the time preceding abiogenesis. It is likely that the kinetic energy of comet entry would have led to the synthesis of a variety of compounds, including purines, from stored cyanide. Second, besides the atmosphere and comets, the other primary center for the synthesis organic compounds was deep sea hydrothermal vents. Here the chemistry was likely much more suitable for the synthesis of purines from cyanide than in the atmosphere. Thus, we have the synthesis of sugars in the atmosphere and upper reaches of the ocean, and the synthesis of purines during the impact of comets and in the lower reaches of the ocean: as hypothesized, separation in space and time." <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html</a> However, if there were no problems, there would be little need for science. Perhaps, within our lifetimes, this too, will be solved. The above link is a very interesting read. doov

06-19-2002, 06:22 PM	#50
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Of course randman could save himself a whole lot of grief by simply e-mailing Professor Coyne and asking him to clarify his position, if randman feels it needs clarifying: <a href="http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/faculty/coyne_j.html" target="_blank">Jerry Coyne's U. of Chicago Home Page</a> I have done so a couple of times, and received prompt, highly informative, and gracious responses from Professor Coyne.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.